Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

astroengine writes: This may seem a little far fetched, but if our understanding of the physics behind the recently-discovered Higgs boson (or, more specifically, the Higgs field — the ubiquitous field that endows all stuff with mass) is correct, our Universe shouldn't exist. That is, however, if another cosmological hypothesis is real, a hypothesis that is currently undergoing intense scrutiny in light of the BICEP2 results. "The mathematics to arise from accepted Higgs field theory suggests the universe is currently sitting comfortably in a Higgs field energy 'valley.' To get out of this valley and up the adjacent 'hill,' huge quantities of energy would need to be unleashed inside the field. But, if there were enough energy to push the universe over the hill and into the deeper energy valley next door, the universe would simply, and catastrophically, collapse.

This is where the BICEP2 results come in. If their observations are real and gravitational waves in the CMB prove cosmological inflation, the Higgs field has already been kicked by too much energy, pushing the Higgs field over the energy hill and deep into the neighboring valley’s precipice! For any wannabe universe, this is very bad news — the newborn universe would appear as a Big Bang, the Higgs field would become overloaded with an energetic inflationary period, and the whole lot would vanish in a blink of an eye."

Better not tell the universe it shouldn't exist. We don't want it to realize that and suddenly stop existing - like when Wile E. Coyote realizes he has already ran off the edge of a cliff and is running in thin air.

If JJ Abrams or Michael Bay are in charge, you bet there will be a crew of 10 sent to solve the problem after Chuck Norris goes MIA, and also bring him back by presidential order. Then the movie will end with Norris and just 3 of the search party returning after successfully re-setting the field. Oh, and a lightning bolt emerging from a black hole will hit the Statue of Liberty. Lens flares will be massive.

so to prove the power of a Chuck Norris roundhouse kick, we will have to fire up the CERN supercollider to ever higher and ever higher energies, until we can record the exact one that makes the universe go "poof."

More logically with time just being a relative measure of change and that relative change itself being significant to itself the amount of time it takes is arbitrary. So relative motion with the sub dimensions of rest, constant speed and acceleration from and deceleration to rest, rather than completely arbitrary time which itself is only ever measured against change, is the more logical.

I think that time and space aren't relative at all, they are the same thing. I mean the expansion of space and the passage of time are the same thing. The implication is the time travel is impossible because both the future and the past do not exist.

Matter with mass slows down the expansion of space and so it also slows the passage of time. Time slows near a black hole. The vast emptiness between galaxies allows the space between to expand more and more rapidly.

Assuming that a thought requires a medium, even if I am a figment of something else's imagination that imagination defines this universe as it is.Of course, when observing from within there is no way we can tell if a thought really requires something to carry it or if the concept of it is sufficient for it to exist. (*)

* Since everyone can be wrong and by definition not knowing that they are wrong there is no way to prove any statement to be correct, including this one. Note that thi

Assuming that a thought requires a medium, even if I am a figment of something else's imagination that imagination defines this universe as it is.
Of course, when observing from within there is no way we can tell if a thought really requires something to carry it or if the concept of it is sufficient for it to exist. (*)

* Since everyone can be wrong and by definition not knowing that they are wrong there is no way to prove any statement to be correct, including this one. Note that this isn't a paradox, this statement can be correct even if its correctness is non-provable.

Though "this universe as it is" may be very different from "this universe as we think it is", or "this universe as 'observed' by us" as observation could just be a dream or simulation

The difficulty with anonymous cowards is knowing when one is the same person. The coward to which Chrisq was responding was appeal to Descartes. The problem with Descartes is that you can only prove your own existence to yourself. In the event of some higher power deceiving you, the only proof you have is of your own existence. So even though you and others say that there's no evidence that I'm existing in a dream or simulation there's no way for me to verify their existence.

and of course along with being no way to verify it....if its true, then in this scenario if the entire exercise is setup to convince you that its real, you may as well assume that it is, since not being real has no actual consequence. If there is a God/Creator/Simulator then he has certainly gone through some rather extreme lengths to hide his existance from us.

if this is a simulation....Kudos to the Creator; It seems real as fuck to me. GJ.

"The difficulty with anonymous cowards is knowing when one is the same person. The coward to which Chrisq was responding was appeal to Descartes. The problem with Descartes is that you can only prove your own existence to yourself. In the event of some higher power deceiving you, the only proof you have is of your own existence. So even though you and others say that there's no evidence that I'm existing in a dream or simulation there's no way for me to verify their existence."

Sort of. Let's assume the condition that you are attempt to infer whether or not your existed is inside a deception or not. You know you think so you are capable of affirming your own existence. Note that this affirmation needs to be accomplished without any external stimuli so no senses. From that root you can then establish the criteria and basis by which you determine something's existence. However that doesn't answer the question on whether these other things actually exist, it only answers the question

"Let me live deep while I live; let me know the rich juices of red meat and stinging wine on my palate, the hot embrace of white arms, the mad exultation of battle when the blue blades flame and crimson, and I am content. Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content."

Theoretical physics is still based on the math working with known facts. The evidence is theknown facts and the laws of math. Of course it may or may not be possible to construct auniverse that doesn't always follow the laws of math.

No and Higgs Boson is an example of why this is so. HB was proposed and experiments done that finally confirmed it. What the original poster said was that "...it is pointless to suggest something exists if there was no evidence towards it."

Theoretical physics starts with a hypothesis and then works to find the evidence. Actually, this is not specific to theoretical physics as it is inherent in the scientific method. Suggesting something exists is called a hypothesis. One then tries to find evidence to sup

Math working out isn't evidence. We construct math to describe the universe, not the other way around. Interesting mathematical findings (particularly symmetries) can suggest areas to look for new physics, but can never in themselves be evidence of physics.

A corollary of this is that there is no such thing as a universe that doesn't follow the "laws" of math -- if a universe was constructed that it couldn't be described using our known math, we'd just come up with new math that can describe it. Excluding

I found an older article about the Higgs field instability itself; the instability arises because the field can be much stronger, leading to much higher particle masses and thus the big crunch alluded to. Although that's assuming that inertial and gravitational mass are still the same thing in such a domain...

Actually I got this wrong, the large masses are a consequence of the instability, the instability itself arises because the Higgs self-interaction can, if these results are correct, become attractive at high energy densities (similar to those predicted for inflation). At that point it's all downhill.

It doesn't seem far fetched at all that we don't fully understand the physics behind the Higgs boson.

Indeed, but you miss the mark. What we don't understand is the physics *around* the Higgs. It's existence has implications that still have to be thought about. It will take a considerable amount of brainpower and time.

A non-crushed universe should be proof enough that our current theories are missing something.

It's just further evidence that I am just a brain in a jar somewhere and you and everything else are figments of my (now apparently flawed) imagination. Sorry about all the misery and suffering n' stuff. But on the bright side, it's not really real.

The logical conclusion is that, because the current universe clearly exists, there is something wrong with either the BICEP2 measurements, conclusions or the theory of the Higgs field. IMO the first 2 options seems the most likely to contain an error. This kind of measurements is extremely complicated and a lot of assumtions are made to get from the raw data to the conclusions. The Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BICEP2) already states that they are backing down a bit and investigating alternative explainations.

See, this is what I thought as well. The Higgs was well predicted and made sense in the standard model, and our measurements at the LHC seem to back up what physicists were speculating. On the other hand, BICEP2 is a much newer result and there's considerable controversy about whether it's a real result or a mistake.

So why would you automatically jump to the conclusion that the HIGGS was the problem? You've already got the other half of the equation under review. Shouldn't we wait to see if the BICEP2 resul

See, this is what I thought as well. The Higgs was well predicted and made sense in the standard model, and our measurements at the LHC seem to back up what physicists were speculating. On the other hand, BICEP2 is a much newer result and there's considerable controversy about whether it's a real result or a mistake.

So why would you automatically jump to the conclusion that the HIGGS was the problem?

The last paragraph of the Royal Astronomical Society press release seems to be agreeing with you, suggesting that an error in the BICEP2 result (or, rather, its interpretation) is the most likely explanation:

"If BICEP2 is shown to be correct, it tells us that there has to be interesting new particle physics beyond the standard model" Hogan said.

IIRC, the BICEP2 result, if interpreted as resulting from inflation, indicates a surprisingly strong inflation event. The above quote su

The biggest problem is that physicists do not want a new theory. Everyone gets paid and paid well to keep doing the usual stuff -- CMB, inflation, Big Bang, String Theory, smashing particles together and looking for the oldest star.

Well, that's because when you're hunting for grants, it's far easier to get funding for something close to what everyone is used to than to get a grant to study something farfetched. And scientists are basically paid for by grants.

Hills and valleys, poetic images and wistful metaphors delivered with Shakespeareian bemusement over a cup of Earl Gray in the ready room, near the end of another episode's close shave with some Cosmic Anomaly or other. Perhaps Q is there as well [briandonohue.org], whispering: "the trial never ends, Jean Luc..."

If the universe can to be in an instant then we could easily believe that it will end as quickly as it began. It is like a baby at birth with its forst gasp of air and an old man at death with his last gasp of air. Both gasps take about the same amount of time.

Okay, so a lower minumum energy exists just past that peak... But even if the early universe reached the peak between the two valleys, why couldn't the Higgs' field have simply fallen back into the current local-but-not-global minimum?

Do deeper lows actually somehow attract the evolution of the field, or did $Deity flip a coin that, fortunately for us, came out heads instead of tails?

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. Deciding whether or not life is worth living is to answer the fundamental question in philosophy. All other questions follow from that. --Albert Camus The Myth Of Sisyphus

The best thing is you won't feel a thing or even see it coming!Spaghettification, fire, drowning, blunt force trauma, radiation poisoning... all rather painful even if only for a split second. This, it even prevents the electrons from being picked up and interpreted as pain!

OK, OK, Higgs field is quite dangerous, and right now we seem to be sitting in the just-the-right-value. And if the Higgs field gets more energy the whole universe might collapse. But the most important question is, "Is the lower Higgs field energy anthropogenetic?". Do we have any kind of plans to absorb sudden injection of high energy into Higgs field in Andromeda galaxy? I never trusted the Andromedans and we are just trusting them not to energize the Higgs field? Just bomb them just to be safe.

"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another theory which states that this has already happened."

No one and I mean no one in the scientific community thinks the existence of the Higgs Boson means the universe should have been crushed. Morons are trying to push crack pot theory. Some jackass is trying to come up with way that something more exotic exists. There is ZERO experimental data that supports this line of thought. The Higgs Boson exists, get over it. Start reconciling gravity with the Standard Model. FYI yes the Standard Model does account for gravity, they're called gravitons. Science reporting is seriously fucked.

1) The higgs field instability is an inherent part of the higgs model; it falls out of the mathematics surprisingly simply and is years-old news at this point. Whether it's a practical concern rather depends on the masses involved, and there's every chance it will go away with improved models2) The author isn't claiming that the Higgs doesn't exist. Regardless, we know that something more exotic than the standard model exists, because we general relativity and QM continue to be bitterly incompatible3) There's no graviton in the standard model, and no obvious way to add one, nor any experimental evidence of one

But, if there were enough energy to push the universe over the hill and into the deeper energy valley next door, the universe would simply, and catastrophically, collapse... For any wannabe universe, this is very bad news — the newborn universe would appear as a Big Bang, the Higgs field would become overloaded with an energetic inflationary period, and the whole lot would vanish in a blink of an eye.

I have no idea what the 'valley' represents, nor the 'hill' so this explanation tells me nothing.

What I read into this metaphor is that the Higgs field is a 'scalar field' that varies only with the distance - so one can draw a graph with distance as the X-axis and 'Higgs' as the Y-axis. This graph has a local minimum, that looks like a 'valley', and one can imagine that it would be possible to 'push reality out of the valley' to the other side of one of the nearby, local maxima. No, I'm not it makes a lot of sense either.

Also, I'm not happy with the tendency in physics to 'run to the fields' and start

The mathematics to arise from accepted Higgs field theory suggests the universe is currently sitting comfortably in a Higgs field energy 'valley.' To get out of this valley and up the adjacent 'hill,' huge quantities of energy would need to be unleashed inside the field.

I have no idea what the 'valley' represents, nor the 'hill' so this explanation tells me nothing.

The mathematics to arise from accepted Higgs field theory suggests the universe is currently sitting comfortably in a Higgs field energy 'valley.' To get out of this valley and up the adjacent 'hill,' huge quantities of energy would need to be unleashed inside the field.

I have no idea what the 'valley' represents, nor the 'hill' so this explanation tells me nothing.